in Rem,

Uploaded by

Description:

ORDER (1)Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend (2) Vacating Order Authorizing Issuance of Arrest Warrant; and (3) Recalling Vessel Arrest Warrant: The complaint is Dismissed with leave to amend, the Order Authorizing Issuance of Warrant for Arrest is Vacated, and the in rem warrant for vessel arrest issued May 1, 2007 is herby Recalled. Any amended complaint must be filed no later than 30 days after this order is stamped "Filed". Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 5/4/2007. (mjj, )(mam). Modified on 5/8/2007 to add dismissing text (mjj, ). 3:2007cv00767 California Southern District Court

in Rem,

Original Title:

Uploaded by

Description:

ORDER (1)Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend (2) Vacating Order Authorizing Issuance of Arrest Warrant; and (3) Recalling Vessel Arrest Warrant: The complaint is Dismissed with leave to amend, the Order Authorizing Issuance of Warrant for Arrest is Vacated, and the in rem warrant for vessel arrest issued May 1, 2007 is herby Recalled. Any amended complaint must be filed no later than 30 days after this order is stamped "Filed". Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 5/4/2007. (mjj, )(mam). Modified on 5/8/2007 to add dismissing text (mjj, ). 3:2007cv00767 California Southern District Court

1 “[T]he need for a quick judicial response [is] usually considerable” in admiralty 2 proceedings. 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3222 (2d ed. 3 1987). This is because “[t]he action in rem is needed to give effect to maritime liens, and those 4 substantive rights might be eroded if the court’s power to act quickly were obstructed by 5 procedural requirements.” Id. On the other hand, in rem actions, requiring a vessel arrest as the 6 means of obtaining jurisdiction over the vessel, are considered drastic prejudgment remedies. Id. 7 § 3242. The supplemental admiralty rules seek to balance the need for quick judicial action with 8 the procedural-due-process protections against abuse of these remedies. Id. 9 Accordingly, the supplemental rules require judicial scrutiny before issuance of a warrant10 of vessel arrest. Supp. R. C(3)(a)(I); see also 12 Wright, supra, § 3222. “Rule C requires that a11 judicial officer examine the complaint and supporting papers and order issuance of a warrant12 only if justified by . . . ‘a prima facie showing that the plaintiff has an action in rem against the13 defendant in the amount sued for and that the property is within the district.’” 12 Wright, supra,14 § 3222, quoting Advisory Comm. Note, 1985 Am. The purpose of this requirement is “to15 eliminate any doubt as to the rule’s constitutionality.” Supp. Fed. R. Civ. P. C, Advisory Comm.16 Note, 1985 Am.17 In addition, a verified complaint is required to commence an in rem action to enforce a18 maritime lien. Supp. Fed. R. Civ. P. C(2). “The Supplemental Rules are silent on the correct19 form of verification. The courts must therefore look to the law of the state in which the district20 court is located to determine what constitutes proper verification.” United States v. $84,740.0021 U.S. Currency, 900 F.2d 1402, 1404 (9th Cir. 1990), rev’d on other grounds as recognized in22 United States v. Real Property Located at 22 Santa Barbara Dr., 264 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2001).23 Under California law, the verification is generally required to be signed by the party. Cal. Code24 Civ. P. § 446(a). When a corporation is a party, as is the case here, “the verification may be25 made by any officer thereof.” Id. The verification in this case is made by one Melissa Schuler.26 (Compl. at 6.) Nothing in the verification or the body of the complaint indicates her relation to27 Plaintiff. If Ms. Schuler signed in her capacity as Plaintiff’s officer, the verification should so28 state. If Ms. Schuler did not sign in her capacity as Plaintiff’s officer, then the verification must

1 state “the reasons why it is not made by one of the parties.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 446(a). In 2 either case, the verification should follow the requirements of Section 446(a) with respect to 3 verifications made on behalf of corporations. The verification in this case does not comply with 4 any of these requirements. 5 In addition, Supplemental Rule E(2)(a) requires “the complaint . . . state the 6 circumstances from which the claim arises with such particularity that the defendant or claimant 7 will be able, without moving for a more definite statement, to commence an investigation of the 8 facts and to frame a responsive pleading.” “It thus requires a more particularized complaint than 9 is demanded in civil actions generally, or even in admiralty actions in which the special remedies10 provided for in Supplemental Rule[ C] are not sought.” 12 Wright, supra, § 3242. The11 requirement for added specifics is thought appropriate because of the drastic nature of those12 remedies, and to fortify the procedural-due-process protections against improper use of these13 remedies. Id. Plaintiffs often strive to comply with this requirement by attaching to the verified14 complaint the pertinent documents, such as the promissory note, preferred ship mortgage and15 other relevant document. This is not the case here. Although Plaintiff refers to numerous16 agreements and other documents on which this action is based, none are attached to the17 complaint. Accordingly, the complaint does not meet the particularity requirement.18 Finally, the claims against in personam Defendants appear to be based on the alleged19 breach of promissory note and guaranty of payment. These claims appear to be governed by20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than by the supplemental admiralty rules. See Supp.21 Fed. R. Civ. P. A. Pursuant to those rules, the in personam Defendants should have been served22 with Plaintiff’s pleadings, since no reason was provided why notice should not be given.23 However, no proofs of service appear on the docket. Should Plaintiff file an amended complaint24 and renew its motions, it must follow the appropriate procedural rules not only with respect to25 the Belle Amie, but also with respect to the in personam Defendants.26 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,27 the Order Authorizing Issuance of Warrant for Arrest is VACATED, and the in rem warrant for28 / / / / /

1 vessel arrest issued May 1, 2007 is hereby RECALLED. Any amended complaint must be filed2 no later than 30 days after this order is stamped “Filed .”3 IT IS SO ORDERED.45 DATED: May 4, 20076 M. James Lorenz7 United States District Court Judge8 COPY TO: 9 HON. NITA L. STORMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE10 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL111213141516171819202122232425262728